Harold George Elston

The applicant sought a determination that a municipal by-law restricted a normal farm practice for a proposed 32-unit residential building with a greenhouse.

The municipality challenged the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant, a non-profit entity, would not be carrying on an agricultural operation with an expectation of gain or reward.

Furthermore, applying Oakville (Town) v. Read, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from the land use provisions of a zoning by-law to permit a high-density residential use in an agricultural zone.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, a board member of a condominium corporation, appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a minor variance allowing the applicants to construct a deck with a reduced rear yard setback and increased lot coverage.

The appellant argued the variance would interfere with the condominium corporation's easement and restrictive covenants regarding maintenance access to a shoreline revetment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the enforcement of private restrictive covenants and easements falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Town of Bracebridge's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit stacked row townhouses.

The appellants and the Town reached a settlement in principle, but a third party did not agree, necessitating a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a draft Procedural Order to govern the upcoming five-day hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment that granted minor variances for shoreline setbacks but imposed an unrequested condition limiting the height of the dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to approve the variances without the height condition, subject to a vegetation plan and adherence to the submitted sketch.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances.

The Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the applicant's motion to substitute Bricktown Co-operative Development Corporation as the applicant in place of The Discovery House Project.

The motion will be heard prior to the re-commencement of the jurisdiction hearing.

The Tribunal held a status hearing regarding an appeal of the Town of Bracebridge's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit stacked row townhouses.

The parties requested dates for a hearing and presented a draft Procedural Order, but noted unresolved issues remained.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and set a 9-day hearing on the merits.

A status hearing was held regarding an appeal of the Town of Bracebridge's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

The parties advised the Tribunal that they were continuing to discuss a revised plan and requested a further status hearing to finalize an issues list and draft procedural order.

The Tribunal scheduled a second status hearing for December 13, 2021.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in the Title of Proceeding of a decision issued on September 22, 2021.

The amendment was made pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

In all other respects, the original decision remains the same.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to recognize an existing dock and boathouse width, and the side yard setback of an existing dock and boatlift.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit a larger dwelling with reduced setbacks and a reduced septic system setback on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the appellant's planning evidence that the proposal would not create negative visual impacts due to significant vegetative buffering and that the upgraded septic system represented a net improvement.

The Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to site plan control and other conditions.

The applicants sought a zoning by-law amendment to permit a luxury camping use ('glamping') on their rural property.

The municipality approved the amendment, which was subsequently appealed by neighbouring property owners.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the number of camping units from 12 to eight.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans, the Tribunal approved the settlement and allowed the appeal in part to implement the revised by-law.

The applicant appealed the Town of Bracebridge's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a townhouse development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that the property had been sold and a revised application would be submitted.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for November 2021 to allow for review of the new submission and granted party and participant status to several neighbours on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by TPC at Marlwood Inc. against the Town of Wasaga Beach for failing to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a 60-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted Participant status to an adjacent resident and a neighbouring developer.

Noting ongoing settlement discussions, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for November 2021, which may be converted to a settlement hearing if an agreement is reached.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application and a related plan amendment application by the Township of Clearview.

The Hearing Officer addressed the impact of the upcoming Ontario Land Tribunal Act on participant and presenter status.

The Hearing Officer also resolved disagreements between the parties regarding the draft Procedural Order, specifically concerning the scheduling of an evening session and the wording of several items on the Consolidated Issues List.

The appellant, a property developer, appealed the dismissal of its application to quash an Interim Control By-Law (ICBL) enacted by the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

The ICBL restricted permitted uses within a designated area to those lawfully existing on the date of enactment and required such uses to be conducted entirely within existing buildings.

The appellant had obtained 11 building permits for a 43-unit condominium development with recreational amenities, had commenced construction, and had undertaken extensive site servicing work, all with Township approval.

The application judge dismissed the appeal, finding the property was not exempt under the Planning Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the development should be viewed as an integrated whole and that the issuance of 11 building permits for constituent elements of the development provided protection under section 34(9)(b) of the Planning Act.

The court found no genuine planning justification for the ICBL and noted it appeared designed to appease local opposition rather than serve legitimate planning purposes.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit allowing the applicant to convert the upper floor of an existing barn into a commercial rental facility for weekend weddings.

The central issue was whether the proposed wedding barn constituted an 'on-farm diversified use' (OFDU) under the new Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Panel found that the proposed development, limited to 30 events annually with a maximum of 175 guests, was secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, compatible with the rural character of the area, and met all applicable development criteria.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

Following successful appeals that revoked a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the applicants sought costs against the Approval Holder and the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The applicants alleged unreasonable and bad faith conduct prior to and during the hearing, including late filing of evidence and changing positions mid-hearing.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs applications, finding that conduct prior to the proceeding is not eligible for costs, and that the conduct during the hearing was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant, the Mayor of the Township of Springwater, sought judicial review of a decision by the Township's Compliance Audit Committee to order a second, 'forensic' audit of his election campaign finances after finding the first audit unsatisfactory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that the court should not intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found that the Committee's decision to order a second audit involved the interpretation of its home statute and was not a true question of jurisdiction.

The court also limited the Committee's standing on the judicial review to jurisdictional issues and confirmed that the Committee's term had not expired.

The appellant appealed the conditional approval of a development permit application to convert a barn into a commercial rental facility for weddings.

Following several adjournments to allow the applicant to pursue an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the applicant decided not to pursue the amendment.

The Hearing Panel held a pre-hearing conference call and issued an order setting the procedural schedule and dates for the hearing of the appeal.

The moving party, an accounting firm appointed to conduct a compliance audit of a mayoral candidate's election campaign finances, brought a motion to dismiss an application for judicial review against it.

The applicant sought to quash the auditor's report.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the auditor was not exercising a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act when preparing the report.

The court held that the report was merely a technical step and not determinative of legal rights, making it plain and obvious that the application against the auditor was devoid of merit.